The Bourne Ultimatum
User Score
8.0 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 501 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 423 out of 501
  2. Mixed: 19 out of 501
  3. Negative: 59 out of 501

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. S.L.
    Jan 6, 2008
    4
    Watching this movie I couldn't tell if I was watching the first movie or the latest. If you have seen the first movie in this series then there really is no need to see the second or third because it is just more of the same and nothing new.
  2. ChachiM.
    Oct 17, 2007
    4
    Utterly forgettable. Julia styles is also talentless.
  3. DWilly
    Aug 2, 2007
    4
    Nope, nope, nope. The first one was art, the second one average entertainment, this third one gives Bourne all the ridiculous luck and supernatural indestructibleness of Willis in a Die Hard movie, but without the tongue-in-cheek style to forgive it. Everyone is just grim as hell as they go about doing one idiotic thing after another. You can see in the trailer where he tells the bad guy that he's in his office, which makes for a nice quip I suppose, but only serves to throw him into yet another desperate situation. And, even if they are being manipulated by an evil superior, are we really suppose to find it so thrilling and wonderful to watch our hero destroy so many United State's intelligence agents. Loud junk.… Expand
  4. RogerB
    Aug 9, 2007
    4
    Cinematography was awful - it was like watching the Blair Witch Project on steroids!!!I It also interfered with the story line. Worst movie I have seen this year!
  5. RobinS.
    Sep 8, 2007
    4
    Big Headache - I did have to close my eyes to "watch" much of this film in the theater. The bumpy camera work continued even during what should have been still close-ups. The sheer white burnout area of so many of the camera shots was like having a flashlight shine in my eyes every couple of milliseconds. The focus was horrible - and all over the place. Yes, I enjoy Jason Bourne, and maybe this film would be more effective on TV - but it was a very trying experience at the movies. Do the stars of this picture look so bad that we should not be able to focus on them? I left the movie having a better idea of what the characters Landy and Daniels looked like than Bourne or the Stiles character. Hopefully this style of camera-work it will be out of style soon. So - the emperor has no clothes - this style of filming is flashy and unrelenting and makes for a painful viewing experience. Enjoy the story with your eyes closed.… Expand
  6. OceanUSA
    Aug 6, 2007
    3
    Yes, thrilling. But the hand-held camera was way over done. If you like herky-jerky fuzzy blurry action sequences where you can't see what's happening, this is your movie. Too bad too because it's great otherwise.
  7. Gavin
    Sep 1, 2007
    3
    If you've seen either of the other two Bourne movies, then you've already seen this one. I was bored to tears.
  8. RogerM.
    Oct 6, 2007
    3
    Continuous action without a soul. Nothing there.
  9. DE.
    Aug 23, 2007
    3
    I thought the first two where great around Bourne psychee. This one is just an action movie, pretty repetitive with no hero you want care for.
  10. SimonS.
    Aug 6, 2007
    3
    For the 3rd time in my life, I walked out of the theatre on a movie. The shaky camera made this movie impossible for me to watch, it was so annoying I couldn't even pay attention to the good story. I just couldn't sit through it, the camera work was so nauseating. My wife and I both couldn't handle it, and we walked out.
  11. LouR.
    Aug 7, 2007
    3
    Movies should come with an HH rating for "hand held" camera. There was about 30 minutes of story and the rest is bad camera work. I'd rather watch utube. No surprises, no twists, no challenge in following the plot -- trust me on this, I did it with my eyes closed. The sound editing was good.
  12. BillC.
    Aug 7, 2007
    3
    Very disappointing action sequences throughout. The editing of these scenes pretty much removes any doubt that this could really be happening. Bourne # 1 & #2 seemed more "real" It just looked fake to me.Compared to a film like Ronnin, the action sequences are bad, and action is about all this film offers.
  13. BJS.
    Sep 3, 2007
    3
    Matt Damon and subject were good. Did not like the jiggly camera, half screen images, blurring, swirling, 10X real time; made me dizzy and tired.
  14. DamonFan
    Nov 1, 2007
    3
    Bourne flees, fights and (narrowly) avoids traps. He's closely monitored by the CIA. Someone's dirty secrets are disclosed. The end. A lot of stuff moved nicely except for the camera.
  15. SteveM.
    Aug 17, 2007
    3
    Great action scenes (if you like the 'loose' camera effects) but poor plot, dull characterization, poor script. Not a patch on the first two, seems like the gravy train has ended on this already!!
  16. Lukel
    Aug 8, 2007
    2
    Fast-paced, but without any credibility. Damon is an unengaging killing machine, Stiles is fluff, and not very attractive fluff at that. The entire film has the entire CIA staff on high alert over nothing but a few CIA killings, as if that would shake them up a lot. The cast in front of the camera could have used a few Red Bulls to bring more life to the screen. The action scenes are well done, but I found myself completely not caring about any of the characters, from the fairly innocent ones to the most rabidly guilty ones.… Expand
  17. VitorA
    Sep 10, 2007
    2
    I believe that if the interface of a medium is too tiresome to work with, then it doesn't matter how good everything else is. In this case the picture is the interface to the viewer because it communicates information. Village Voice says Ultimatum is some of the most accomplished filmmaking being done. I don't think so. The way Ultimatum was filmed makes my eyes so tired from having to follow the camera: the blurriness, the shakiness, the cropping, the - it just never stops moving. Not even in the quite scenes between Bourne and that blonde chick did the camera ever stop moving. To quote an unregistered user's post in another site, "The director must have glued a video camera to an attention deficits monkey and gave him the control to the focus and the zoom while it was on acid." To me, the film is broken. I don't care what the story is since it takes too much effort to follow it. Effort in this case being my eyes, which feel like their being gouged out halfway through the movie. On top of that. The film doesn't do anything amazing other than the one fight scene with the black guy. Ultimatum is the crummy finish to the first part of the story, Supremacy, which I saw hours before I seeing Ultimatum. Both follow a similar formula and both are anti-climactic. Ultimatum also disappoints because it focuses less on Bourne and more on the investigators saying one-liners that we've all heard before: Give me this camera angle, give that camera angle, etc... Ultimatum is ultimately ruined... even if the story was any good, watching it is much too painful. I could've walked out half-way in and not cared what happened to Bourne, but relief that I didn't have to sit through the rest.… Expand
  18. FredB.
    Sep 28, 2007
    2
    Apparently the director missed that day in filmmaking school when they covered the concept of "less is more." The shaking camera bit was taken to a ludicrous extreme. When half the audience either raves or complains about the camera work, you know the director has screwed up--interesting camera technique is not why we go to see films! A little bit of shaking in the fast-paced scenes could have accomplished the desired effect, but no, the director has to smash us over the head with it. He seems amateurish, as if he discovered a new trick and really had to go overboard with it, forgetting the basics of good filmmaking and storytelling in the process. Maybe the success of his earlier films has gone to his head?… Expand
  19. JohnM.
    Aug 23, 2007
    2
    Nowhere near as good as the first two. Combination of continual shots which are far too close, which make it hard to tell what is happening and grainy film quality make the film laborious to watch. Continual harping back to the last two movies is just boring. I'm sure it's arty. Its just hasn't much of a story and little attention to character. Its just not entertaining.
  20. TA
    Aug 8, 2007
    2
    It started well but became boring. We left halfway.
  21. SamG.
    Aug 4, 2007
    1
    To begin, I want you all to know that I was excited to see this movie. I loved the first two Bourne movies and thought they got better as the stories carried on. With that said I would like to inform you that the third movie is about Jason Bourne, I know this is surprising but really guys. It is. "This is Jason Bourne." When sitting through the first half hour of this movie, I wouldn';t be shocked if I heard that line repeated 20+ times. Holy redundancy! Okay. We get it. Jason Bourne is one guy you don't want to mess with. He shouldn't be chased or thought about unless you want your brain to spontaneously combust. After the brilliantly creative writing in the first half hour, comes Paul Greengrass' idea to recreate the hand-held camera-work that makes it seem like you are in the middle of the action, as in the Bourne Supremacy, which I liked. Although, this time Greengrass put on his silly glasses and drank a 40 of whiskey then storyboarded all the shots for the movie or maybe Greengrass just told the camera operators to do the Riverdance while shooting the scenes. It's hard to tell what he was thinking but this lasts throughout the movie and becomes very sickening. Most of the time I felt like I couldn't even see what was happening on the screen. Once I grabbed my doggy bag from the concessions area, I noticed the 3rd worst part of the movie. That is when Pamela Landy and Noah duke it out in the most annoying feud of people on the same team ever. If you want to watch two eight-year-old Nazis bicker with each other about toys or Jason Bourne, then enjoy. In case you forgot, Julia Stiles has a role in this movie. Wait. Not really. She starts to have a role in the movie and then her agent must have called her to start shooting for The Omen 2. I forgot how she is so busy with all the parts she has been taking lately and how it's good to have completely meaningless characters in movies. If you liked the resourcefulness of Bourne in the first 2 movies, you can throw that in the dumpster with this movie. A few examples are when he is riding a dirt bike away from the police, hits a curb with his front tire and the bike jumps onto a ledge five feet in the air or when he is playing bumper cars with a police car in rush hour traffic, then gets the car flipped onto a median that came from who knows where. While going probably 70+ mph and still sliding on the median, he grabs onto the seat belt holding onto dear life and ends up walking out of the crash with a few minor flesh wounds. So in summary the movie is kind of like this: Good? Who could tell? It's like watching French fries crackle along with a spew of hot bubbles in the back of a McDonald's. Do the actors act? Again, you got me. Does it make sense? Ask the scriptwriters, they'd probably know. Does it give you a headache? Hmm, about the size of Rose O'Donnell's waist line. The Bourne Ultimatum is the Blair Witch Project meets Speed meets Matrix Revolutions meets the dumbest CIA and NSA agents ever. Truthfully, I would rather eat a bowl of steaming crap while watching Home Alone 3 and Super Mario Brothers at the same time.… Expand
  22. TonyS.
    Oct 11, 2007
    1
    Couldn't agree more with Roger M.
  23. XX
    Dec 11, 2007
    1
    Lame closer for an otherwise great series. Action sequences were so muddled that there was no point of reference, so in turn, were ineffective. The acting was marginal, especially compared to the other films. As well, I think they forgot to source the second film because they duplicated the car chase almost exactly where it ends with the assassin pretzeled inside the crushed car as Bourne just looks at him and walks away???… Expand
  24. JeffdavisD.
    Aug 15, 2007
    1
    A noisy waste of talent, film stock and my time. The music is not just constant racket, it's overwhelmingly awful. Read the book.
  25. TintinP.
    Aug 19, 2007
    1
    Ok folks I don't want to disappoint you but uuuh yah... ok. For a first i`ll have to say that without a DOUBT in my mind the camera operators where on crystal methamphetamine and thats probably were all the money on this big budget film went... other than that, I mean, I don't understand why they didn't send like instead of 2 backup teams like maybe 3 or TEN at THE SAME TIME!?!? I mean cmon folks we are dealing with "BOURNE" or whatever... the title of this film should be "super duper secret agent amnesia man strikes again for the THIRD TIME DAMNIT!!!!!" you will only enjoy this film if you are brainwashed already and for those of you who did you'll be excited to know they are actually making the next installment "When Jason Bourne was born" apparently they are taking him to the beginning beginning!!!… Expand
  26. LP.
    Dec 11, 2007
    1
    This movie nearly discredits the first two. The action sequences are so convoluted that there is absolutely no point of reference which makes it difficult to be affected. As well, the makers of this film may have wanted to source the second installment, because i think they duplicated a scene. To my recollection, Supremacy involved a scene where an assassin (Karl Urban) was pretzelled in a car crash and Bourne kind of stares at him deeply then walk off. I guess they ran out of ideas. Anyway, there are moments I guess that are OK, but all in all, this movie could give the Harry Potter series a run for it's overbloated money in the "Utter dross in commercial acceptance" category.… Expand
  27. Mike
    Feb 3, 2008
    0
    way way way over the top! This movies tries to be serious, but how can you take it seriously when the main charater is smarter then the whole CIA department.
  28. MartyB.
    Aug 17, 2007
    0
    I could join the legion of people complaining about the camera work but I have been assured by my fellow film expert Jimmy B. that it was necessary to creat a sense of realism. All I can say about that is...a scene about a conversation in an office doesn't need the "shaky cam" for it to be more believable. Poor choice by the director...to use that method throughout the whole film.
    A    ND NOW FOR THE MAIN POINT!!!
    Even though I came away from this film unsatisfied...I decided that I would be way less motion sick if I read the book...although I sometimes find myself waving the pages back and forth and shaking my head side to side...just for effect of course...HOWEVER did you know that the book and the film have absolutely no relevence. The title is the same but believe me (even though I'm only on chapter 7) the book is terrific. It deals with Bourne who is leading a normal life with a family etc...until he finds himself being hunted down by his nemisis CARLOS THE JACKAL. This story, like others about Bourne have nothing to do with the films but Ludlum is a great writer...I was disappointed that it has nothing to do with the movie because I like to compare stories told through both mediums...but as I get deeper into the novel it helps me forget that dizzy night I wasted $12.    … Expand
  29. Pete
    Aug 21, 2007
    0
    Total rubbish!! Matt Damon is such a horrible and dumb actor!
  30. DianeW
    Aug 23, 2007
    0
    Just awful. The camera work is so distracting, I couldn't follow the plot, because I had to make sure my husband didn't throw up in the theatre. I walked out halfway through (he was that sick that he needed a break from the picture!) and he actually went back in and stood in the back to watch the rest. And when he came out, he still couldn't explain to me what had really happened. I like a good action flick, but this wasn't it.… Expand
  31. PJO
    Aug 26, 2007
    0
    Overrated trash. Far too many reliable papers gave this movie too high a score. If anything is unusual about this predictably dull action movie is that so many reviewers mistook their like of Matt Damon. I didn't even flinch, squirm, or jump once. Not even close. This movie is LAME.
  32. JessicaC
    Aug 8, 2007
    0
    After the first 15 min. I was hoping everyone would die.They even managed to make New York look bad.
  33. weltact
    Jan 19, 2008
    0
    ok, so were talking action films here. the only reason i watched this is because people are constantly comparing MI series with this.. matt damons sped up fights, are you serious? the whole army is chasing matt damon across the world, hes just too smart and powerful to be caught. are you serious? matt damon is playing CIA like fools, theyre completely helpless ARE YOU SERIOUS ???

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85 out of 100

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 38
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 38
  3. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    90
    Audiences will eat it up: This is a postmillennial spy-action movie pitched to a large international audience. You hardly need subtitles.
    Read full review
  2. Variety
    Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    A pounding, pulsating thriller that provides an almost constant adrenaline surge for nearly two hours.
    Read full review
  3. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: David Denby
    80
    You come out of the movie both excited and soothed, as if your body had been worked on by felt-covered drumsticks.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »